ESPN doing a great job of piling on

[Warren Brusstar]

Of course the reaction to Bartman is part of the story. The reaction in any major event if always part of the story, especially when it comes to sports. You're talking like even discussing what happened to Bartman is off limits, like it wasn't this bizarre thing that obviously happened. Your argument is basically "well, if it wasn't such an interesting story then nobody would be interested." Well, no [expletive].

 

And saying he had nothing to do with the collapse is asinine. Of course he did. There's a difference between him being involved and him being at fault.

Look if Steve Bartman had never been born, then the Cubs' history would be exactly what it is now. Some other fan would have been sitting in that seat, and would have reached for that ball, and hey, maybe some other fan would have actually caught it... not that it matters.

 

So yeah, the story of how some poor schmuck was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had his life ruined as a result, isn't what I'd call interesting.

 

Nor is the story about how the delusional fanbase of a sad sack franchise has a new, pathetic, irrelevant scapegoat to blame for its failures what I'd call interesting.

 

But hey if those storylines are interesting to you, go ahead and tune in.

 

I don't know how you could possibly know this. Do you not watch baseball games? Both before and after Bartman, fans of the home team have routinely avoided interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands.

 

You can make the case that it is *likely* that another fan would have reacted similarly. But you certainly can't assert it as unquestioned fact.

[davearm2]

Of course the reaction to Bartman is part of the story. The reaction in any major event if always part of the story, especially when it comes to sports. You're talking like even discussing what happened to Bartman is off limits, like it wasn't this bizarre thing that obviously happened. Your argument is basically "well, if it wasn't such an interesting story then nobody would be interested." Well, no [expletive].

 

And saying he had nothing to do with the collapse is asinine. Of course he did. There's a difference between him being involved and him being at fault.

Look if Steve Bartman had never been born, then the Cubs' history would be exactly what it is now. Some other fan would have been sitting in that seat, and would have reached for that ball, and hey, maybe some other fan would have actually caught it... not that it matters.

 

So yeah, the story of how some poor schmuck was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had his life ruined as a result, isn't what I'd call interesting.

 

Nor is the story about how the delusional fanbase of a sad sack franchise has a new, pathetic, irrelevant scapegoat to blame for its failures what I'd call interesting.

 

But hey if those storylines are interesting to you, go ahead and tune in.

 

I don't know how you could possibly know this. Do you not watch baseball games? Both before and after Bartman, fans of the home team have routinely avoided interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands.

 

You can make the case that it is *likely* that another fan would have reacted similarly. But you certainly can't assert it as unquestioned fact.

Maybe you should watch the replay. Every fan in the area is reaching for that ball. Bartman simply happened to be closest to it.

 

Heck if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove.

[davearm2]

And fans of the home team do not routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. Give me a break.

 

Some fans duck for cover when a ball's headed their way, sure.

 

But you don't "routinely" see fans evaluating the situation and making a conscious decision to back off so their team's fielder has a better play on a ball, all while the ball is actually in flight headed right at them. They either try and catch it, or try to avoid being hit by it.

[J.R.]

Bartman is still a douche.

[Warren Brusstar]

Of course the reaction to Bartman is part of the story. The reaction in any major event if always part of the story, especially when it comes to sports. You're talking like even discussing what happened to Bartman is off limits, like it wasn't this bizarre thing that obviously happened. Your argument is basically "well, if it wasn't such an interesting story then nobody would be interested." Well, no [expletive].

 

And saying he had nothing to do with the collapse is asinine. Of course he did. There's a difference between him being involved and him being at fault.

Look if Steve Bartman had never been born, then the Cubs' history would be exactly what it is now. Some other fan would have been sitting in that seat, and would have reached for that ball, and hey, maybe some other fan would have actually caught it... not that it matters.

 

So yeah, the story of how some poor schmuck was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had his life ruined as a result, isn't what I'd call interesting.

 

Nor is the story about how the delusional fanbase of a sad sack franchise has a new, pathetic, irrelevant scapegoat to blame for its failures what I'd call interesting.

 

But hey if those storylines are interesting to you, go ahead and tune in.

 

I don't know how you could possibly know this. Do you not watch baseball games? Both before and after Bartman, fans of the home team have routinely avoided interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands.

 

You can make the case that it is *likely* that another fan would have reacted similarly. But you certainly can't assert it as unquestioned fact.

Maybe you should watch the replay. Every fan in the area is reaching for that ball. Bartman simply happened to be closest to it.

 

Heck if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove.

 

No, maybe you should look at the pictures on page 1 of this thread. Neither the fan directly to Bartman's left, nor the fan directly to his right ever reach for the ball.

 

The only fans who actually reached for the ball are (1) the fan two seats to Bartman's right, (2) the fan directly behind the person two seats to Bartman's right, and (3) (maybe, it's hard to tell) the fan directly behind the fan directly to Bartman's right. No one else reaches for the ball. So, out of 7 or 8 fans within reaching distance of the ball, 3 or 4 tried to catch it.

[Warren Brusstar]

And fans of the home team do not routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. Give me a break.

 

Some fans duck for cover when a ball's headed their way, sure.

 

But you don't "routinely" see fans evaluating the situation and making a conscious decision to back off so their team's fielder has a better play on a ball, all while the ball is actually in flight headed right at them. They either try and catch it, or try to avoid being hit by it.

 

Yes, they do routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. In any event, resolving that point is unnecessary. You're the one who took the position that "any" fan would have done exactly what Bartman did. Now, you are conceding (as you must, of course), that lots of fans duck for cover and try to avoid it. Indeed, that's clearly what's happening with the female fan directly to Bartman's left in the pictures on page 1.

 

At bottom, regardless whether it's characterized as "avoiding the ball" or "letting the home team try to make the catch," your position that "any" fan would have done the same thing Bartman did is asinine.

[davearm2]

And fans of the home team do not routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. Give me a break.

 

Some fans duck for cover when a ball's headed their way, sure.

 

But you don't "routinely" see fans evaluating the situation and making a conscious decision to back off so their team's fielder has a better play on a ball, all while the ball is actually in flight headed right at them. They either try and catch it, or try to avoid being hit by it.

 

Yes, they do routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. In any event, resolving that point is unnecessary. You're the one who took the position that "any" fan would have done exactly what Bartman did. Now, you are conceding (as you must, of course), that lots of fans duck for cover and try to avoid it. Indeed, that's clearly what's happening with the female fan directly to Bartman's left in the pictures on page 1.

 

At bottom, regardless whether it's characterized as "avoiding the ball" or "letting the home team try to make the catch," your position that "any" fan would have done the same thing Bartman did is asinine.

Your taking things so literally is also asinine.

 

Back on topic: earlier I said, if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove.

 

Agree or disagree?

[SouthSideRyan]

The way the rows are structured down there, there aren't many people sitting in the catchable area. Maybe 50-50 shot somebody else gets a hand on it before Alou.

[Warren Brusstar]

And fans of the home team do not routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. Give me a break.

 

Some fans duck for cover when a ball's headed their way, sure.

 

But you don't "routinely" see fans evaluating the situation and making a conscious decision to back off so their team's fielder has a better play on a ball, all while the ball is actually in flight headed right at them. They either try and catch it, or try to avoid being hit by it.

 

Yes, they do routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. In any event, resolving that point is unnecessary. You're the one who took the position that "any" fan would have done exactly what Bartman did. Now, you are conceding (as you must, of course), that lots of fans duck for cover and try to avoid it. Indeed, that's clearly what's happening with the female fan directly to Bartman's left in the pictures on page 1.

 

At bottom, regardless whether it's characterized as "avoiding the ball" or "letting the home team try to make the catch," your position that "any" fan would have done the same thing Bartman did is asinine.

Your taking things so literally is also asinine.

 

Back on topic: earlier I said, if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Based on the pictures, disagree. But there's no way to know for sure, because that didn't happen. In any event, that he *did* prevent the ball from reaching Alou's glove makes him partially at fault for the loss (among a dozen or more persons who also bear some blame)

[Guancous]

I'm going to the Bartman 30 By 30 premiere this afternoon. I'll post a review this weekend.

[Guancous]

Catching Hell is a fine documentary. In true ESPN fashion, a full third of the movie is about Bill Buckner and the ball that went through his legs.

 

Bartman is treated sympathetically and much more blame is given to Alex Gonzalez's error. Almost no mention is made of leaving Mark Prior in too long during the blowout in game 2.

 

There's a solid discussion on the psychological impact of scapegoating and great videos that haven't been shown before. It has to hurt when 50,000 people are swearing at you in unison.

 

Verdict? Baseball fans should watch it but it's not essential for Cubs fans. It's still an in-depth exploration of one of the worst days of our lives. It's visceral and takes you back to the gruesome end of the 2003 season. At times it feels more like a horror movie than a documentary.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sounds pretty good. Thanks for the review.

[drcub1908]

LOOK I am older than Bartman. So I was more upset that he was at the game vs. me

 

1. How did he those seats and not me?

2. If I was sitting there, I would have the ball and Alou's glove.

3. Alex booted a double play.

[SouthSideRyan]

I pulled up seats like 3 rows behind him when they went on sale. Timed out before I could get through.

[biittner77]

Hey did you know Babe Ruth called his own shot at Wrigley once? :hello:

My Grandfather was at that game

[Flames24Rulz]

The 30 for 30 documentary was featured on the On Demand over here, so I tortured myself for two hours. In typical ESPN fashion, they managed to introduce the Red Sox as the co-stars of the documentary. That said, it was still a really good piece.

 

Watching the reaction of the fans tormenting Bartman wasn't exactly easy to look at.

[OleMissCub]

they managed to introduce the Red Sox as the co-stars of the documentary.

 

what the hell do they have to do with it?

[Flames24Rulz]

they managed to introduce the Red Sox as the co-stars of the documentary.

 

what the hell do they have to do with it?

 

They correlated the Buckner play in 86 with the Bartman play, using examples such as the scapegoat effect both had on their teams and how both events occurred in a Game 6. I understand why they did it (especially considering the producer is a Red Sox fan...lol), but it was a little over the top.

 

I'd say a good 25% of the film consisted of the aftermath of the Buckner play. At the end of it, it was almost like the producer was bragging that the Red Sox were able to overcome their "Buckner curse" with two championships in four years.

[Flames24Rulz]

Catching Hell is a fine documentary. In true ESPN fashion, a full third of the movie is about Bill Buckner and the ball that went through his legs.

 

Bartman is treated sympathetically and much more blame is given to Alex Gonzalez's error. Almost no mention is made of leaving Mark Prior in too long during the blowout in game 2.

 

There's a solid discussion on the psychological impact of scapegoating and great videos that haven't been shown before. It has to hurt when 50,000 people are swearing at you in unison.

 

Verdict? Baseball fans should watch it but it's not essential for Cubs fans. It's still an in-depth exploration of one of the worst days of our lives. It's visceral and takes you back to the gruesome end of the 2003 season. At times it feels more like a horror movie than a documentary.

 

This was basically how I felt too. The whole 30 for 30 series does a great job at getting camera views from places that you've never seen before either and they did the same thing with this documentary.

 

It's really tough to watch how all of the fans reacted as the whole 8th inning progressed. It just grew worse as the collapse continued to escalate.

[Tracer Bullet]

they managed to introduce the Red Sox as the co-stars of the documentary.

 

what the hell do they have to do with it?

 

They correlated the Buckner play in 86 with the Bartman play, using examples such as the scapegoat effect both had on their teams and how both events occurred in a Game 6. I understand why they did it (especially considering the producer is a Red Sox fan...lol), but it was a little over the top.

 

I'd say a good 25% of the film consisted of the aftermath of the Buckner play. At the end of it, it was almost like the producer was bragging that the Red Sox were able to overcome their "Buckner curse" with two championships in four years.

 

why don't they correlate buckner to Agon, which would actually make sense?

[Mark Priors Calves]

When does this premiere on ESPN?

[UMFan83]

When does this premiere on ESPN?

 

I dunno but its available on Comcast On Demand (for 6.99)

 

I think I might watch it later today

 

It's 104 minutes long and listed as a full fledged movie.

[Guest]

When does this premiere on ESPN?

 

I dunno but its available on Comcast On Demand (for 6.99)

 

I think I might watch it later today

 

It's 104 minutes long and listed as a full fledged movie.

 

Wiki says September 27.

[Little Slide Rooter]

they managed to introduce the Red Sox as the co-stars of the documentary.

 

what the hell do they have to do with it?

 

They correlated the Buckner play in 86 with the Bartman play, using examples such as the scapegoat effect both had on their teams and how both events occurred in a Game 6. I understand why they did it (especially considering the producer is a Red Sox fan...lol), but it was a little over the top.

 

I'd say a good 25% of the film consisted of the aftermath of the Buckner play. At the end of it, it was almost like the producer was bragging that the Red Sox were able to overcome their "Buckner curse" with two championships in four years.

 

why don't they correlate buckner to Agon, which would actually make sense?

 

Before Bill Buckner was the Red Sox Bill Buckner, Leon Durham was our Bill Buckner, but for some reason, people ignore that and blame goats, black cats, and other nonsense.

[NCCubFan]

Catching Hell premiers Tuesday, Sept. 27 at 8:00 P.M. Eastern time on ESPN and will also air Thursday, Sept. 29 at 11:00 P.M. Eastern time on ESPN2.